electricoak

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision with an unprecedented 5–4 split. Bittner v. U.S. featured a faceoff between Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in dissent—with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson breaking with the liberals to give Gorsuch his decisive fifth vote. But it gets even stranger: Jackson was the only justice to join a key section of Gorsuch’s opinion endorsing special solicitude for federal defendants’ due process rights.

What does it all mean? On the surface, not a lot: Bittner is a minor case about civil penalties for people who fail to disclose their foreign accounts to the IRS. Dig deeper, though, and the decision suggests a certain libertarianism in Jackson’s jurisprudence that may distinguish her from the two other progressive justices. That trait does not map neatly onto the left–right divide that emerges in so many cases, as Tuesday’s ruling demonstrated. Instead, it points toward a skepticism of government power that should cheer civil libertarians across the political spectrum.

Bittner revolved around a provision of the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA. The statute requires American citizens and residents to file an annual report with the IRS identifying all of their foreign accounts if the money they hold, in aggregate, exceeds $10,000. A person who inadvertently fails to file these reports—a “nonwillful” infraction, as lawyers call it—incurs a penalty of up to $10,000 per “violation.” Attempted enforcement of the BSA has raised a thorny question: What counts as a “violation” under the law? The government says individuals incur a $10,000 fine for each foreign account they fail to report. Those facing BSA penalties say they incur $10,000 for each annual report they fail to file.

The difference is important for Alexandru Bittner, the defendant in this case, who holds 272 foreign accounts that he failed to report over five years. (No one claims he’s using them illegitimately—Bittner is a dual American-Romanian citizen with a thriving business career in Romania.) If he’s fined per report, he owes $50,000. If he’s fined per account, he owes $2.72 million.

SCOTUS sided with Bittner on Tuesday, albeit barely. Gorsuch’s majority opinion was joined by Jackson along with John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. Barrett’s dissent was joined by Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

The majority and dissenting opinions dueled over the statutory text, but Gorsuch went a step further, highlighting two other reasons to interpret the BSA narrowly. First, he pointed out that the IRS has taken inconsistent positions on this question: Until 2019, it suggested in guidance documents that the penalty applied to each missed report, not to each unreported account. Then the agency changed its mind. That’s particularly troubling given that many Americans have no idea about their obligations under the BSA, and the government hasn’t done much to educate them. U.S. embassies and consulates stopped providing tax consulting for American expatriates a decade ago. The relevant form (which does not create tax liability) isn’t even an IRS document; it’s published by the Treasury Department, and the submission process is totally different from the process for other tax documents. In short, it is very easy for well-intentioned people to run afoul of the BSA.

Which leads to a second reason to reject a broad reading of the law: the rule of lenity. This principle requires federal courts to interpret laws against the government and in favor of defendants when they are unclear or ambiguous. It’s typically invoked in the criminal context, but applies to civil fines, too. And, Gorsuch wrote, it’s especially appropriate here. The rule “exists in part to protect the Due Process Clause’s promise” that laws must provide “a fair warning” that “the common world will understand,” he asserted. Here, “the government’s own public guidance documents” supported a more lenient interpretation before taking an about-face. Many qualified accountants shared that view of the law until the IRS decided it was incorrect. “If many experienced accountants were unable to anticipate the government’s current theory,” Gorsuch concluded, “we do not see how ‘the common world’ had fair notice of it.”

Notably, only Jackson joined this portion of the opinion. Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh refused to sign on, though they joined the rest of Gorsuch’s decision. Why? It’s not hard to guess. Gorsuch is the court’s most consistent proponent of the rule of lenity, sometimes to the conservatives’ dismay. In 2019’s U.S. v. Davis, for instance, Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion striking down a federal law imposing harsh mandatory minimum sentences on certain offenders. Resisting a different interpretation that would spare the law—and preserve the defendant’s lengthy sentence—he invoked the rule of lenity, declaring that “ambiguities about the breadth of a criminal statute should be resolved in the defendant’s favor.” This approach infuriated Kavanaugh, who wrote an acerbic dissent accusing Gorsuch of misapplying the principle. Thomas, Roberts, and Alito joined Kavanaugh in full.

More recently, in 2022’s Wooden v. U.S., Gorsuch wrote a mini treatise endorsing the rule’s expansion. Some decisions suggest that it applies only to “grievous ambiguities,” he noted, but “this ‘grievous’ business does not derive from any well-considered theory about lenity or the mainstream of this court’s opinions.” Defendants should not have to prove that a law is severely or hopelessly ambiguous; rather, any “reasonable doubt” about its scope “should be resolved in favor of liberty.”

Just as this theory can repel conservatives when applied to violent crime, it can turn off liberals when applied to white-collar offenses and regulatory mandates. Sotomayor joined most of Gorsuch’s full-throated support for the rule of lenity in Wooden. Yet when the court released Bittner on Tuesday, Sotomayor was in dissent, along with Kagan. Both justices telegraphed their votes during oral arguments when they suggested that only wealthy tax-dodgers attempting to deceive the IRS could get caught up under the law. Jackson viewed things differently. “Realistically,” she said, the reporting requirement applies to “anybody who’s living overseas.” Unlike Sotomayor and Kagan, Jackson understood that it isn’t just rich business magnates who face punishment under this law, but also working-class expats. And she alone signed onto Gorsuch’s application of lenity.

1. The Poll That Did in Dilbert Creator Scott Adams Is Even Dumber Than You Can Imagine

2. The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Tried Very Hard Today to Find a Good Reason to Screw Biden

3. There’s a Clear Answer to the Texas Judge Who Thinks He Can Ban Abortion Pills Nationwide

4. Will This Make Biden Acknowledge the Supreme Court Is Out of Control?

Bittner thus shows how the rule cuts across ideological lines. So does another case lurching toward SCOTUS: Cargill v. Garland, a challenge to the ban on “bump stocks,” devices that transform semi-automatic rifles to mimic automatic weapons. The government issued a regulation outlawing bump stocks after one was used to kill 60 people in 2017. In January, however, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the ban, citing (among other reasons) the rule of lenity. In the coming years, more conservative courts will use lenity in striking down more regulations favored by progressives. Perhaps Sotomayor and Kagan refused to apply the rule here in part because they are wary of its creeping expansion into the administrative state and firearm restrictions.

If that’s true, it seems Jackson does not share their fears, just as she does not share their concerns that Bittner will let loaded tax-cheats off the hook. Those few data points we have on the newest justice all point toward a suspicion of government overreach, though it’s too soon to say how consistently she’ll apply these views. The one indubitable conclusion so far is that Jackson is not just a liberal but a civil libertarian, and whenever the government seeks to punish a citizen, it should never take her vote for granted.

Originally Appeared Here

Christopher De Los Santos

For the third year in a row La Vega High School senior Ruben Alarcon is helping community members with their federal tax returns.

“When I first did this as a sophomore, I was scared,” Ruben said. “There were all these juniors and seniors helping people and I didn’t know if I could do it.”

Many career and technical education students at La Vega High School have earned the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance certification through the IRS, helping out members of the public at free workshops.

Now Ruben is one of the most confident among the many career and technical education students who have earned the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance certification. He said he stayed until 8 p.m. one evening a few weeks ago to make sure all the people got helped.

The school’s tax preparation workshops are free to the public.

“I would come back next year and keep helping people with their taxes if I could,” Ruben said.

Ruben will graduate in a few months and join the U.S. Navy under the delayed entry program to go to nuclear propulsion training. At tax season next year, he likely will be learning about the reactors that power U.S. Navy submarines and aircraft carriers.

People are also reading…

La Vega High School volunteer Alexa Rangel, right, helps 2017 graduate Yuridia Navarro with her tax return Thursday.

Rod Aydelotte, Tribune-Herald

2017 La Vega graduate Yuridia Navarro brought her federal taxes to the high school cafeteria Thursday afternoon, and high school junior Alexa Rangel assisted her.

“My mom used to help me do my taxes,” Navarro said. “For my first experience with my own taxes, this was pretty good.”

Navarro said Alexa was friendly, gave good customer service and made the process smooth and easy.

“I would recommend this to my friends,” Navarro said.

Alexa enrolled in the accounting and business class that Renee Contreras teaches. She said Contreras talked to her class about helping the community with their taxes through the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program she oversees.

“It sounded interesting and I wanted to try it,” Alexa said.

This is her first year helping people do their taxes.

“Last Thursday, I had a client with so many forms,” Alexa said. “I had to ask for help.”

Renee Contreras, faculty sponsor for the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program at La Vega High School, performs a quality assurance check on a tax return.

Rod Aydelotte, Tribune-Herald

Contreras said her students are trained to help people with basic federal tax returns and they also know how to process some business income as well. Student tax preparers are all certified through the IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program and have their skill credentialed through LinkedIn Learning, Contreras said.

“These kids feel a real sense of civic responsibility,” Contreras said. “They work hard and they’re dedicated. They enjoy helping people.”

Before starting as a career and technical education teacher this school year, Contreras had been a math teacher for 25 years. She worked 10 years before that as an accountant.

La Vega High School Principal James Villa said Contreras reviews the student tax preparers tirelessly. The students have all performed many simulated tax returns before the help an actual client.

The program lets students apply what they learn in the classroom in the real world, Villa said.

“We have an emphasis on service learning with industry certification this year,” Villa said. “The VITA (Volunteer Income Tax Assistance) program goes right along with that. Many people in the community, especially elderly people, rely on our students to prepare their taxes.”

Community member Daniel Salinas brought his ID, his tax documents and an official document with his Social Security number for students to help him prepare his income tax return.

“Last year I went to the tax service at Walmart and they charged me almost $250,” Salinas said. “My grandson is a student here and he told me about this opportunity to get my taxes done for free.”

La Vega’s certified student tax preparers will continue to help community members from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays through April 15. On Tuesdays they will be at the Waco-McLennan County Central Library, 1717 Austin Ave. On Thursdays they will be at the La Vega High cafeteria, 555 N. Loop 340.

Want to see more like this?

Get our local education coverage delivered directly to your inbox.

Originally Appeared Here

This year, taxes are due on Tuesday, April 18.

Regardless of whether a person files early or waits for the last minute, doing taxes can be a whole day of work.

The Internal Revenue Service estimates it takes the average non-business filer nine hours to prepare their tax return, with an average non-business tax prep costing $160.

The IRS usually has all of the information you file; it knows how much you owe, but it doesn’t tell you. The current tax filing system puts it on you to match its numbers.

It’s part of a cycle driven mostly by the lobbying of large tax preparing services.

ProPublica’s reporting revealed tax preparing companies have spent millions lobbying Congress to avoid simplifying the tax code and tax filing so that everyday people filing their taxes will throw their hands up in frustration and pay for their services.

At the same time, anti-tax advocates — primarily conservative groups who want to fuel opposition to taxation — have pushed hard to defund the government, specifically the IRS, and elect lawmakers who will do that and keep people angry at the tax system.

An underfunded IRS struggles to fulfill its duties, especially when the tax code keeps getting more complicated.

So for the time being, America is stuck in the clutches of a system that drives a lot of people to pay for tax prep services.

So what does an easy and free solution look like?

The IRS has a system called Free File available on its website and open to any person or family who earns $73,000 or less. The agency estimates Free File is available to about 70% of tax filers, but the actual usage rate is pretty low.

In 2020, IRS data showed more than 148 million individual income tax returns were filed online. Of that 148 million, just over 4 million, or less than 3%, actually used Free File.

While the IRS can let you submit for free, getting outside help to understand the bevy of forms you need can be pricier. That’s built into software like TurboTax, but the IRS can’t offer similar services because of the agreement it struck with tax preppers when it created Free File in the early 2000s.

SEE MORE: How likely are you to be audited this tax season?

The IRS has a list of providers that offer free tax prep help if you meet certain qualifications, but the system is full of obstacles. Plus, each site has its own specific set of requirements.

Providers may try to funnel you into paid programs or force you into one if you get certain tax credits. If you try to find help yourself using a search engine, you might find services that are similar to the Free File program but actually are not, and that can even stump the experts.

Beverly Moran is a professor emerita of tax law at Vanderbilt University. She has written six books and dozens of articles on the tax system. She puts her expertise to work, helping people file their taxes in order to find issues with the process. Even she found herself dealing with an impostor.

“I went on one of these sites that was not through the IRS website but appeared to be through the IRS website,” Moran said. “I went all the way through, filled out the return and then was told that I owed $29. Well, that’s ridiculous. So I called the company and they said, ‘Oh, well, the person that you were doing this return for is eligible for the earned income credit.’ And any time there’s a credit, this program requires a payment. And it seems to me that virtually anyone who is eligible for that software, for that free software, was going to be eligible for the earned income tax credit, so they all would have had to pay.”

The earned income tax credit is a government benefit for lower income people that is delivered through the tax code. Estimates show 1 in 5 workers eligible for it don’t even file for it. This was last year for a 2021 tax return, which meant there was another big benefit the first provider had overlooked.

“When I finally got to the IRS website and I found another provider within the IRS website, I realized that the original provider that had wanted to charge had dropped a $1,400 credit,” Moran said.

Another potential solution to the problem is return-free filing. The government would calculate your taxes using all of your W-2s and tax forms; then you could either accept the result or provide proof that you should pay less or get back more.

California piloted its own version of this approach to favorable reviews from tax filers. Joe Bankman, a Stanford Law professor, helped create the system.

SEE MORE: Inflation could impact your tax return this year

“They know what your wages are because your employer already reported it to them,” Bankman said. “So in California, we took that information and we sent a pilot group a completed return, and we also made it available online. And we said, ‘Based on what we know and on what you reported last year about your household status, how many kids you have and so on — here’s what we think your return will look like. If this is right, hit correct, submit.'”

But it didn’t last long. California Republicans alleged, among other criticisms, the software could cost taxpayers money if it didn’t always maximize deductions. Plus, Intuit – the maker of TurboTax, which is based in California – spent over a million dollars lobbying lawmakers as Ready Return was getting off the ground.

Bankman fought back, pouring in $35,000 of his own money to counter-lobby state legislators to promote the return-free system. He’s also advocated for it to members of Congress.

“When I went to California to try to fight into it I thought, ‘Well, there’s only 120 legislators. I’ll talk to them all one-on-one.’ And I found that in order to do it, I had to hire a lobbyist because I just couldn’t handle the details or get the meetings,” Bankman said. “In Congress when I went there, now there’s 500-plus. And what I found everywhere I went is that Intuit had already preceded me. They’d already met every representative I was going to meet.”

So the current system lives on, but this year, a new stream of funding is making it easier for people to get help from the IRS.

The IRS received money in the Inflation Reduction Act that Congress passed last year to bolster its phone support service. It allowed the agency to purchase new technology and hire 5,000 more employees to answer the calls of confusion.

A 2022 report found only about 10% of calls to the IRS made it to an actual IRS employee, a trend that had been consistent the past couple of years. But this year, a Treasury Department source told the Washington Post the response rate through Feb. 4 had soared to 88.6%.

SEE MORE: Tax season has begun. Here’s how to prepare, avoid a refund delay

Originally Appeared Here

As tax season gets underway, it’s not just federal taxes that are a big topic of conversation. There’s also state taxes, too, and a new report shows just how well some states are graded on their tax policies, with five receiving an “A” and four getting a failing “F.”

See: What Is the Standard Deduction for People Over 65 in 2023?
Explore: 3 Signs You’re Serious About Raising Your Credit Score

For the study by finance site MoneyGeek, states were graded on their “tax burden” for the average resident — the lower the burden, the higher grade the state received. To gather the findings, MoneyGeek ascertained what an average family would pay in state taxes in 2023 using data collected from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey along with incomes reported by the U.S. Census Bureau and housing information from Zillow.

MoneyGeek stated they then created a “hypothetical family” including one dependent, an adjusted gross income (AGI) of $87,432 representing the median national income and a property value of $374,665, also reflecting the national new home median price. While most states fell in the middle, averaging a “B” or “C” grade, there were nine states that stood out for their high marks or low standards.

Among the states with the lowest tax burden, the five earning an “A” included:

1. Wyoming (3.9% of income)
2. Nevada (4.6% of income)
3. Tennessee (5.5% of income)
4. Alaska (5.5% of income)
5. Florida  (5.6% of income)

Conversely, among the states with the highest tax burden, these four earned an “F” grade:

1. Illinois (16.9% of income)
2. Connecticut (15.3% of income)
3. New Jersey (14.8% of income)
4. New Hampshire (14.3% of income)

Not far behind were New York, Iowa, Vermont, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Michigan, which all earned D grades.

The starkness of the highs and lows stands out as well, as MoneyGeek noted, “For a typical middle-class family, the tax burden difference between living in the highest-tax state (Illinois) and the lowest-tax state (Wyoming) is $11,340 per year.”

An analysis from The Hill noted that there are eight states that have no income taxes — Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming — which made them score favorably even though there are generally higher sales taxes in these states that hurt their grade. For example, Tennessee has a sales tax rate of 9.55%. While there are some states with high income tax rates — like California, due to many tax credits, deductions and strategic tax brackets — residents don’t end up paying as much as other states with lower income tax rates.

The news comes as the Tax Foundation reported that many families migrated last year, largely choosing states with friendlier tax policies and leaving behind those with higher tax rates. As the organization reports in one example, Illinois lost 0.8% of its population in 2022.

Tax Filing: IRS Recommends This April Deadline to Pay Taxes (Even With Extension)
More: How Much the Average Taxpayer is Getting Back

GOBankingRates also recently reported that 27 states (nearly half of the nation) are now eyeing personal income tax cuts, or nixing them altogether as many states are amassing budget surpluses. In two cases, Mississippi and Arkansas, leaders believe having no state taxes would be a boon to attract businesses as well as new households.

More From GOBankingRates

This article originally appeared on
GOBankingRates.com:
Is Your State Tax-Friendly? Only 5 Were Given an A-Grade (and 4 Failed)

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.

Originally Appeared Here

Most of us would hardly consider ourselves to be tax experts. Nevertheless, every year we’re required to wade through confusing paperwork and ever-changing rules in order to file our taxes. If you don’t have a paid tax professional helping you with your return, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has employees on board to provide free help to taxpayers in person and over the phone. But getting that help could end up costing you something else: your time and patience. Taxpayers have long complained about how hard it is to reach any of the agency’s telephone assistors. And now, the IRS is warning against even trying. Read on to find out why the agency is advising taxpayers to avoid calling right now.

READ THIS NEXT: 3 IRS Deductions You Can’t Take This Year, Experts Warn.

iStock

The 2023 tax season is expected to be a confusing one for taxpayers, as many pandemic-related changes are being phased out after three years. As a result, the IRS said it “has taken additional steps” to help improve service this year.

One of these major adjustments was an increase to the agency’s workforce. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in Aug. 2022 allowed the IRS to hire more than 5,000 new telephone assistors over the last few months. These new customer service representatives have received weeks worth of training to “help improve the taxpayer experience” by answering phone questions, according to the agency.

“The IRS is fully committed to providing the best service possible, and we are moving quickly to use new funding to help taxpayers during the busy tax season,” former IRS Commissioner Chuck Rettig said in an Oct. 2022 statement. “Our phone lines have been simply overwhelmed during the pandemic, and we have been unable to provide the help that IRS employees want to give and that the nation’s taxpayers deserve … As the newly hired employees are trained and move online in 2023, we will have more assistors on the phone than any time in recent history.”

iStock

Despite this recent addition to the agency’s workforce, the IRS is still calling for caution when it comes to over-the-phone assistance. “Even though we have new hires in the pipeline, our phone lines remain extremely busy,” Rettig warned in October.ae0fcc31ae342fd3a1346ebb1f342fcb

Doug O’Donnell, the acting IRS Commissioner who recently took over from Rettig, gave a similar warning in January, right before the 2023 tax season started. “We’ve trained thousands of new employees to answer phones and help people [but] our phone volumes remain at very high levels,” he confirmed.

Over the past few years, these historically high levels have led to many people’s phone calls going unanswered. During the 2022 tax season, the IRS received about 73 million telephone calls from taxpayers looking for help, according to The Washington Post. But Erin Collins, the national taxpayer advocate, reported that only about 10 percent of these calls actually reached an IRS employee.

“If a private company failed to answer nine out of 10 customer calls, customers would go elsewhere. That, of course, is not an option for U.S. taxpayers,” Collins wrote in her report.

RELATED:
For more up-to-date information, sign up for our
daily newsletter.

iStock

It’s now more important than ever for you to heed this advice. In a new alert posted Feb. 16, the IRS warned taxpayers that the “peak period” for filing taxes is quickly approaching. According to the agency, many people prepare and submit their tax returns during Presidents Day weekend every year. As a result, this creates a peak period for calls to the IRS.

“The IRS continues to see improvements this tax season compared to previous years, including better phone service,” O’Donnell said in a statement. “But we always see a significant surge in phone traffic around Presidents Day. With the calendar advancing, millions of people turn their attention to taxes during this period.”

iStock

In light of this anticipated phone line surge, you might be better off trying different options before resorting to calling. “During the two week February period following Presidents Day, the IRS recommends turning first to the self-help tools available online,” the agency said in its new alert.

The IRS website is full of tools designed to provide quick answers to taxpayers at any time. “There’s no wait time or appointment needed—online tools and resources are available 24 hours a day,” the agency explains. For help answering common tax questions, the IRS suggests searching the Interactive Tax Assistant (ITA), Tax Topics, and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sections of its online website. You can also set up your own Online Account to help get personal tax information quickly.

“To avoid potential delays, we encourage people to check IRS.gov first, which can provide much of the same information instantly to taxpayers,” O’Donnell said in his statement.

Best Life offers the most up-to-date financial information from top experts and the latest news and research, but our content is not meant to be a substitute for professional guidance. When it comes to the money you’re spending, saving, or investing, always consult your financial advisor directly.

Originally Appeared Here

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A battle for political control of the Ohio House has laid bare the risks the Republican Party faces as factions of its legislative supermajority square off more over tactics and the willingness to thwart long held institutional norms than policy.

Six weeks ago, Republican Jason Stephens, a second-term representative from rural southern Ohio, scored a surprise bipartisan win for speaker over Rep. Derek Merrin. Since then, Stephens’ detractors have grabbed headline after headline for their maneuvers — even as a single piece of legislation is yet to be introduced. That includes the crucial and time-sensitive state budget.

And the clashes appear far from over. With Stephens preparing finally to unveil Republicans’ session priorities Wednesday, a group of GOP lawmakers lined up against him — calling themselves “the Republican Majority Caucus” — have not ruled out suing him for control of the caucus campaign fund.

The faction wants a judge to clarify whether the House speaker and the head of the caucus need necessarily be the same person. While Ohio law does not seem to require it, Stephens has asserted he is both.

“I’m the speaker of the House, the head of the Republican caucus, and I’m excited for us to get ready and move forward,” Stephens told reporters after successfully passing House rules Jan. 24 during a typically boring procedural session-turned-raucous.

“We now have our House in order,” he declared, even as Merrin backers stood nearby alleging constitutional and rules violations. Those included that Stephens had failed to let them speak on the floor — a time-honored tool of speakers everywhere — and begun the session at 2:05 p.m. rather than 2 p.m.

It’s all part of a growing line of attacks against Stephens and the Republican representatives who supported him that is roiling lawmaking in a state where the GOP rules every branch of state government and twice chose Republican Donald Trump for president by wide margins.

The fight has included a declared takeover of the GOP caucus by Merrin’s camp, a call for Stephens’ resignation, censure of Stephens and his GOP supporters by the Ohio Republican Party’s central committee and attack ads by one of several same-party PACs that are starting now to fight their reelections.

“There’s a lot of people right now who don’t feel like they have a voice, because the Democrats elected the speaker of the House,” Merrin told reporters the day he declared himself in charge of the caucus and its fundraising operation, despite Stephens’ election. The Associated Press has not yet received records on that closed-door vote in response to its requests.

Fracturing is a known risk of supermajority rule.

Aristotle Hutras, who served as executive secretary to the late Democratic Ohio House Speaker Vernal Riffe, who led the chamber from 1975 to 1995, recalled the legendary Ohio politician worrying aloud after his party won 62 of 99 seats in 1982: “It might be too many, boys.” Republicans this year have 67.

“Even Vern Riffe, historically the longest serving speaker in Ohio history, knew it could be difficult governing with too much of a majority,” said Hutras, who was a young caucus staffer in 1982. “When there are too many in a caucus, every man is a king.”

Hutras said Riffe resolved conflict quickly by getting straight to work.

Merrin’s group believes math is on their side. Forty-three of 67 House Republicans supported him for speaker, a clear majority of the caucus. But 22 broke off and supported Stephens, defying results of an informal speaker vote in November and teaming with all 32 House Democrats.

Clearly perplexed, angry and stung, the Merrin camp went on the attack. Though Merrin is term-limited in two years, many of his allies are new lawmakers whose ability to make their marks could depend on caucus financial support.

They asked the state party’s central committee to condemn Stephens and those who voted for him, including withholding future party endorsements and campaign cash. The panel didn’t go quite that far, but they did vote to censure the 22 lawmakers — as they had after then-U.S. Rep. Anthony Gonzalez voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment.

Their resolution cast Democrats as the enemy, with a “dangerous and perverse” agenda that Stephens and the others had now prevented Republicans from blocking.

Targeted lawmakers pushed back. State Rep. Bill Seitz, a long-serving Cincinnati Republican, said his record as a conservative was clear. State Rep. Sara Carruthers chided Merrin in a Dayton Daily News interview, calling him a crybaby who couldn’t stand being outmaneuvered.

State Rep. Jon Cross quipped to the USA Today Network’s Ohio bureau, “What you’re telling me is I’m a Republican that voted for a Republican speaker and the state Republican party is censuring me? Sounds like the dipsh–s are running the insane asylum.”

The Ironton Tribune, located in the seat of the county where Stephens is a former commissioner and auditor, called the censure “juvenile” and “politics at its worst.”

“(T)here seems to be no interest in turning down the outlandish rhetoric and acting like the adults in the room,” they wrote.

The paper called on Republican Gov. Mike DeWine to speak out and urge the party to “move toward actually getting things done in Columbus.”

DeWine, an establishment Republican whose support for Trump has been tepid, has faced his own share of run-ins with the state central committee — where opponents of his aggressive early response to the coronavirus have grown in their numbers. He said he was staying out of it.

His budget bill, a $57.5 billion blueprint for state spending over the two years beginning July 1, is among House bills that are yet to materialize — though some committee activity has begun on the proposal.

Stephens’ and Merrin’s differences appear largely to surround stylistic decisions, including how quickly a measure to the ballot that would make it harder to amend Ohio’s constitution should be pushed and whether to fully eliminate Ohio’s income tax, for example.

A key exception is with regard to unions. Stephens questions a so-called “backpack bill” that would extend Ohio’s vouchers to every schoolchild, including those attending private schools, and appears to have rejected bringing an anti-union “right to work” bill this session, which had been a Merrin priority.

Groups touting parents’ rights, a burgeoning Republican priority nationally, have used union donations to try to link Stephens and his leadership team to former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, who’s on trial for corruption in Cincinnati. They cast the group as in the pocket of “Big Labor,” including the same teachers’ unions that supported Householder and have opposed the backpack bill.

“Conservatives in Ohio are aghast at the backroom deal-making that led to the speakership of Jason Stephens,” said former U.S. Senate candidate and Ohio Strong Action PAC Chair Mike Gibbons. “Because we have seen time and again, these deals end up sacrificing principled conservative policy.”

He said he represents a group of conservative leaders, and groups that have a clear agenda. They are pushing to retire Ohio’s income tax and for a suite of bills that died last session, including the backpack bill, a ban on transgender student-athletes in girls sports and one prohibiting gender affirming surgeries to minors.

They also back a ballot proposal that would raise the threshold for changing Ohio’s constitution from 50% to 60%. That idea arose suddenly during last year’s lameduck session, just as issues guaranteeing abortion rights, reforming redistricting and legalizing recreational marijuana were being contemplated. Then-Speaker Bob Cupp, also a Republican, declined to bring the issue to the floor for a lack of votes. Under Stephens, the House missed a Feb. 1 cutoff for getting it on the spring ballot.

Gibbons said his coalition will be bringing its issues “straight to the voters of Ohio, making the case” in the coming weeks.

___

Samantha Hendrickson is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

Originally Appeared Here

In this file photo from April 23, 2020, former President Donald Trump’s name is seen on a stimulus check issued by the IRS to help combat the adverse economic effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. The IRS announced Friday, Feb. 10, 2023, that most relief checks issued by states last year aren’t subject to federal taxes, providing 11th hour guidance as tax returns start to pour in.

Eric Gay/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Eric Gay/AP

In this file photo from April 23, 2020, former President Donald Trump’s name is seen on a stimulus check issued by the IRS to help combat the adverse economic effects of the COVID-19 outbreak. The IRS announced Friday, Feb. 10, 2023, that most relief checks issued by states last year aren’t subject to federal taxes, providing 11th hour guidance as tax returns start to pour in.

Eric Gay/AP

The IRS announced Friday that most relief checks issued by states last year aren’t subject to federal taxes, providing 11th hour guidance as tax returns start to pour in.

A week after telling payment recipients to delay filing returns, the IRS said it won’t challenge the taxability of payments related to general welfare and disaster, meaning taxpayers who received those checks won’t have to pay federal taxes on those payments. All told, the IRS said special payments were made by 21 states in 2022.

“The IRS appreciates the patience of taxpayers, tax professionals, software companies and state tax administrators as the IRS and Treasury worked to resolve this unique and complex situation,” the IRS said Friday evening in a statement.

The states where the relief checks do not have to be reported by taxpayers are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. That also applies to energy relief payments in Alaska that were in addition to the annual Permanent Fund Dividend, the IRS said.

In addition, many taxpayers in Georgia, Massachusetts, South Carolina and Virginia also avoid federal taxes on state payments if they meet certain requirements, the IRS said.

In California, most residents got a “middle class tax refund” last year, a payment of up to $1,050 depending on their income, filing status and whether they had children. The Democratic-controlled state Legislature approved the payments to help offset record high gas prices, which peaked at a high of $6.44 per gallon in June according to AAA.

A key question was whether the federal government would count those payments as income and require Californians to pay taxes on it. Many California taxpayers had delayed filing their 2022 returns while waiting for an answer. Friday, the IRS said it would not tax the refund.

Maine was another example of states where the IRS stance had created confusion. More than 100,000 tax returns already had been filed as of Thursday, many of them submitted before the IRS urged residents to delay filing their returns.

Democratic Gov. Janet Mills pressed for the $850 pandemic relief checks last year for most Mainers to help make ends meet as a budget surplus ballooned.

Her administration designed the relief program to conform with federal tax code to avoid being subject to federal taxes or included in federal adjusted gross income calculations, said Sharon Huntley, spokesperson for the Department of Administrative and Financial Services.

Senate President Troy Jackson called the confusion caused by the IRS “harmful and irresponsible.”

“Democrats and Republicans worked together to create a program that would comply with federal tax laws and deliver for more than 800,000 Mainers,” the Democrat from Allagash said in a statement Friday.

Originally Appeared Here

LANSING — All Michigan retirement income would be taxed in the same way private pensions were taxed prior to 2012, under a plan proposed Wednesday by Michigan Democrats.

The plan also appears designed to avoid what was an expected 0.2 percentage point cut in the state’s 4.25% income tax rate, by diverting about $800 million in 2022 revenue from the state’s general fund to issue $180 rebate checks to Michigan tax filers.

Michigan Republicans were quick to attack the plan, on that basis.

“The people of Michigan should see through Gov. Whitmer’s attempt to offer them a temporary bribe to cover up a disastrous tax hike,” said state Rep. Andrew Beeler, R-Port Huron.

Whitmer continued to insist it is too early to say whether the expected income tax rollback would have taken effect, since the state’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report will not be published until March, and said the pension plan would restore tax exemptions to seniors who had the “rug pulled out from under them” by former Gov. Rick Snyder and legislative Republicans in 2012.

The pension tax changes would kick in more quickly for some retirees than for others, under a report adopted by a joint House and Senate conference committee on House Bill 4001, in a 4-2 party-line vote.

When Snyder changed the way pensions were taxed, he exempted Michiganders on private pensions who were born before 1946. For the 2022 tax year, those retirees were able to deduct up to $56,961 of private retirement income if filing alone, and up to $113,922 of retirement income, if filing jointly with a spouse. Those deduction caps are increased yearly to keep pace with inflation.

Under the new Democratic plan, all retirees would be treated the same way as those private pensioners who Snyder exempted from his plan, once the new proposed law is fully phased in.

Public pensioners, who were not subject to any state income tax prior to the 2012 changes, would have their pensions taxed in the same way as private pensions are, but with the phased-in higher deduction amounts. The exception would be Social Security income, which would remain tax-free.

More:Whitmer presents $79B state budget for 2024, resulting from record surplus

More:Whitmer’s budget to propose slashing sales tax for buyers of electric vehicles

The changes to pension taxes would apply to income from both pensions and 401(k) plans and are expected to reduce Michigan general fund revenues by $58 million this year, with that amount increasing to $515 million by 2026.

Under the plan:

• Taxpayers born before 1946 would continue to have their pensions taxed the same way they are now;
• For the 2023 tax year, Michiganders born after 1945 and before 1959 would be able to deduct retirement income up to 25% of the maximum deduction the retirees exempted by Snyder are able to take;
• For the 2024 tax year, Michiganders born after 1945 and before 1963 would be able to deduct retirement income up to 50% of the maximum deduction the Snyder-exempted retirees enjoyed;
• For the 2025 tax year, Michiganders born after 1945 and before 1967 would be able to deduct retirement income up to 75% of that maximum deduction; and
• For the 2026 tax year, all Michiganders would be able to claim that maximum deduction for retirement and pension income.

The legislation contains one other special provision.

Those collecting retirement income as public police officers and firefighters, county corrections officers, and state police troopers and sergeants, would be able to take the maximum deduction beginning in the 2023 tax year.

As for the $180 tax rebate checks, the bill retroactively diverts $800 million in general fund revenue from the 2022 fiscal year to the Michigan Taxpayer Rebate Fund, which would then be the source of the money for the checks, provided the bill takes effect before April 18 of this year. Under the proposal, a couple who files jointly only gets one $180 check. The bill also clarifies that should that couple opt to file separately, each would receive only a $90 check.

A 2015 law provided for a rollback of Michigan’s income tax rate for the 2023 tax year, should general fund revenues exceed a certain cap. The House Fiscal Agency calculated in March that revenues were likely to exceed that cap by about $700 million, resulting in a reduction in the income tax rate from 4.25% to 4.05%. Under the bill, those revenues would never actually reach the general fund, so the income tax rollback would not be triggered.

Getting immediate effect for the legislation in the Senate would require a handful of Republican votes.

And starting in 2023, should corporate income tax revenue exceed $1.2 billion, the first $50 million of excess would be deposited in the Michigan Housing and Community Development Fund, the next $50 million would be deposited in the Revitalization and Placemaking Fund, and up to $500 million of any remaining excess funds would be deposited in the SOAR (Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve) Fund, used to lure new industry.

That distribution of excess corporate income tax funds would continue through the 2025 fiscal year, after which only the first $50 million in excess revenue would be deposited in the Michigan Housing and Community Development Fund, with the rest remaining in the general fund.

As previously reported, the bill also increases the state Earned Income Tax Credit to 30% of the federal credit, up from 6%, beginning in the 2023 tax year.

The House was expected to vote on the measure Wednesday, but didn’t. The House could take it up Thursday, followed by the Senate.

Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter @paulegan4.

Originally Appeared Here

Comment on this story

Comment

House Republicans are demanding that President Biden agree to policy concessions in exchange for their support in raising the nation’s $31.4 trillion borrowing limit. But it is not clear — even to leading GOP officials — what they’re asking Biden to do.

As Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) evades questions about his demands on the debt ceiling, which must be lifted to avoid an economically catastrophic government default, dozens of House Republicans and other conservatives have put forward their own ideas for what McCarthy should bring to the negotiating table.

The White House says it won’t negotiate over whether to lift the debt ceiling. But Biden did meet with McCarthy on Wednesday to talk about the borrowing cap. Eventually, some combination of these proposals will probably form the basis of what the GOP asks of the administration, either as part of debt limit negotiations or in separate talks over the federal budget.

The debt ceiling is a legal limit on how much the country can borrow, and it’s been raised or suspended routinely in the past, including three times when Donald Trump was president. The debt accumulated over the years is now near the current $31.4 trillion limit, and as a share of the nation’s economy, it’s rapidly approaching the record set after World War II.

Republican lawmakers say they want to rein in borrowing in exchange for voting to raise the cap. However, at least one of their ideas — rescinding newly approved funding for the Internal Revenue Service — is likely to reduce tax collections and therefore increase borrowing, according to nonpartisan estimates. Other proposals would force major cuts to programs that millions of Americans depend on, which could create political vulnerabilities for the GOP nationally.

Yet McCarthy may have trouble placating the House conservatives who nearly derailed his bid for the speaker’s gavel unless he embraces drastic measures — complicating GOP lawmakers’ attempts to figure out just what they’ll demand of Biden.

“They’re in the middle of a conversation that is very healthy — lots of members have lots of ideas, and they’re in the process of sorting through them now,” said Newt Gingrich, who served as the Republican speaker of the House under the Clinton administration and is an outside adviser to McCarthy. “They are trying to find serious, real changes that move the pattern of the debt by significantly reducing wasteful government spending, put it together in a form the country understands, and then offer a package that has so many good ideas the president can’t reject all of them.”

Democrats, however, see in the GOP’s ideas an opportunity to emphasize the different visions between the parties over federal spending. White House aides argue that making policy concessions in exchange for raising the debt limit would reward Republicans for holding the U.S. economy hostage. Biden has also pushed McCarthy to release his own budget, believing all the options the GOP has discussed would hurt them politically.

“House Republicans are making their priorities very clear: They are going to raise taxes on hard-working Americans, hamstring the IRS’s ability to crack down on wealthy tax cheats, and do everything they can to hurt families and the economy by slashing spending on education, transportation, housing, health care and other critical federal investments,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, a left-leaning group.

To get scoops, sharp political analysis and accountability journalism in your inbox each morning, sign up for The Early 202.

Here are seven of the emerging GOP ideas on what to demand in the debt limit fight, as well as why critics think they each have enormous downsides.

Big cuts to agency spending

Return to menu

The most likely GOP demand is sweeping cuts to the part of the federal budget known as “discretionary” spending, which excludes programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and Social Security. This type of spending — which includes funding for the Defense Department and other federal agencies — jumped from close to $1.1 trillion a year to $1.6 trillion a year between 2017 and 2023, as Congress went on spending sprees during the Trump administration and the first two years of the Biden administration, said Brian Riedl, a conservative policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute, a right-leaning think tank. That number does not adjust for substantial increases in inflation.

Republicans have looked at cutting this type of spending — which amounts to roughly 30 percent of the entire federal budget — to the levels spent in the 2022 fiscal year. That may not sound dramatic, but it could mean slashing funds for most domestic programs by as much as 20 percent because Republicans don’t want to make any cuts to the military or veterans’ benefits, according to Donald Schneider, who served as a top aide to House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee and is now deputy head of U.S. policy at Piper Sandler, an investment bank. That would reduce overall domestic spending by about $130 billion next year. Some Republicans are proposing rolling spending back to FY 2019, before the pandemic, which would mean a $195 billion cut if defense spending stays the same, Schneider said.

A recent paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank, found that despite the increases funding for these domestic programs is below 2010 levels when adjusting for inflation and population growth, excluding veterans benefits.

House approves $1.7 trillion omnibus bill amid GOP objections, sending it to Biden

These cuts would hit politically popular programs such as spending on energy assistance for low-income Americans; K-12 education; Pell Grants for college students; the National Institutes of Health; NASA; and others. There are other, potentially less dramatic options, such as freezing future increases in non-Pentagon spending or just cutting spending by less, Riedl said. Another idea being batted around is to demand $3 of spending cuts for every $1 increase in the debt ceiling, although that still leaves the all-important question of what to cut.

“There’s plenty of room for savings from caps, and even if you approved no savings, it would still create a constraint on the appropriations process so they could not keep growing much faster than inflation,” said Marc Goldwein, senior vice president at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for lower debt. “There’s plenty you can do there that would be quite meaningful from a fiscal perspective.”

Cutting discretionary spending might provoke less outrage than cutting Social Security and Medicare, but these cuts could still prove difficult for Republicans to push — and for Democrats to accept — so soon after the GOP signed off on major spending increases under the Trump administration. “It’s not realistic,” Schneider said.

Still, many observers believe spending cuts or freezes will be a major focus in negotiations — in part because other options may be even less politically palatable.

Changes to Social Security and Medicare

Return to menu

After his meeting with Biden on Wednesday, McCarthy stressed that cuts to Social Security and Medicare are off the table as lawmakers try to craft a deal. Former president Donald Trump has also told the GOP to not push Social Security and Medicare cuts. But many Republicans have raised proposals and ideas that could change these programs in dramatic ways, if not now, then in the future.

House GOP eyes Social Security, Medicare amid spending battle

GOP lawmakers say the two entitlements pose serious challenges to the country’s fiscal health. Social Security is expected to become insolvent by 2033, while Medicare’s key hospital trust fund could face its own fiscal crunch in 2026. Both will continue paying benefits, albeit perhaps at sharply reduced rates, if federal estimates are correct.

Earlier this year, Republicans raised the potential they could seek cuts in “mandatory spending,” which could include Social Security and Medicare, as part of their commitment to produce a budget that’s balanced in 10 years. Initially, some key lawmakers — including those in the Republican Study Committee, the largest bloc of GOP members in the House — pointed to past proposals that would have raised the federal retirement age for younger Americans. Last year, the Republican Study Committee also recommended raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 and changing the way benefits are calculated.

In recent days, though, Republicans have largely distanced themselves from these ideas — with many instead raising the possibility of a commission that would study Social Security and Medicare and report back possible changes. One bill, called the Trust Act, would pave the way for entitlement-related legislation to come to the floor more easily. Some Republicans have also pushed reductions in Medicare reimbursements for providers, such as formulas for paying hospitals, that would leave seniors’ benefits unchanged.

Return to menu

One of the most popular ideas among Republicans for negotiating over the debt limit would, according to nonpartisan experts, actually push the federal government further into debt.

Few ideas have as firmly united the GOP in opposition as Biden’s $80 billion funding increase for the Internal Revenue Service, approved last year as part of Democrats’ broader Inflation Reduction Act. Senior House Republicans have as recently as this week discussed demanding a reversal of the IRS funding increase as part of debt limit talks, according to two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) also told The Washington Post that he regards undoing the IRS funding as a top priority in debt limit discussions. “I want to get rid of the new IRS agents,” Scott said.

House GOP votes to slash IRS funding, targeting pursuit of tax cheats

“This should be at the very top of the list of demands,” said Steve Moore, a former economic adviser to Trump who is in touch with top GOP congressional leaders. “There are many Republicans who have made this a top priority.”

Democrats call this idea a giveaway to tax cheats. Former IRS commissioner Charles Rossotti and current Treasury official Natasha Sarin previously estimated the IRS could raise $1.4 trillion in additional tax revenue with more funding, and Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen has promised the new funding will not be used to increase audit rates for anyone earning under $400,000 per year.

The White House is almost certain to reject all GOP proposals to repeal IRS funding and has already ridiculed these requests. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has also estimated that a House-passed GOP bill to rescind $70 billion in IRS funding would force the government to borrow more than $100 billion.

Return to menu

At the height of the pandemic, Congress approved more than $5 trillion in emergency aid to help workers, families and businesses facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Nearly every major spending package was bipartisan in nature, except the final measure, the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which GOP lawmakers opposed in 2021 — and long have blasted as wasteful.

Federal watchdogs ask Congress for long-delayed help to fight covid fraud

Some party leaders have explored in recent days whether it’s possible to claw back or rescind some of that aid to help pay down the country’s debt. The issue arose during a congressional hearing Wednesday focused on finding waste, fraud and abuse in federal pandemic funds: Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) at one point inquired what might happen to money that Congress set aside for schools — yet remains unspent — now that Biden is preparing to end the national covid emergency.

In terms of savings, though, the impact could be relatively small: Gene Dodaro, the nation’s comptroller general, said earlier in the hearing that only about $157 billion in total federal pandemic aid remained unspent and unobligated as of November. That’s about 0.5 percent of the $31 trillion national debt.

Return to menu

Republicans have also begun discussing some debt limit demands that have little — if anything — to do with federal spending or taxes.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), a conservative who played a pivotal role negotiating the deal that elected McCarthy speaker, said on Fox News in late January that he will use the debt limit standoff to push his controversial border security plan. Roy’s legislation would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to block border crossings for all immigrants, including those seeking asylum.

GOP leaders have also discussed the possibility of tightening asylum laws, or pushing for additional funding to complete the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, said the two people familiar with internal discussions. An increase in border wall funding may be more feasible than Roy’s bill, which is a nonstarter with Democrats and has even been criticized by some Republicans. “Allow anti-immigrant legislation on the House floor and I am a NO on the debt ceiling,” Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Tex.) tweeted.

“I hear it pretty regularly as a fallback idea if there’s no budget cuts — this is part of the idea to ‘expand the deal’ to other options,” one of the people with knowledge of internal discussions said. “It’s this and cutting IRS funding.”

New work requirements for federal programs

Return to menu

Some congressional Republicans are discussing whether to use the debt limit to impose new work requirements on beneficiaries of federal programs.

Conservative advisers who recall the GOP’s 1996 budget deal with the Clinton administration — which placed dramatic new work requirements on federal welfare — are pushing Republicans to make a similar push this year.

Gingrich, the former House speaker, said polling supports additional work requirements on “able-bodied” Americans, and that he had pitched the idea to current House Republican leaders. “In my conversations with Republican leadership in both houses, but especially the House, I keep telling them: A key reform is to restore and expand work requirements,” said Larry Kudlow, who served as Trump’s top economic adviser and is now a Fox News host. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) is also now trying to persuade his colleagues to demand new work requirements in the debt limit fight, according to Semafor.

Still, even some conservative analysts are skeptical, in part because work requirements already exist for welfare, food stamps and, in many states, Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. “There aren’t that many places to go with work requirements that we have not gone already,” said Riedl, the Manhattan Institute analyst.

Return to menu

Some congressional Republicans have argued that the threat posed by the debt limit has been badly overstated. They believe that even if Congress does not increase the government’s borrowing limit, the Treasury Department can still make critical payments — such as to U.S. bondholders, Social Security and Medicare recipients and the Defense Department — by redirecting incoming tax revenue. (Government revenue covers roughly 75 percent of total federal spending.) That, they say, would force Democrats to accept large spending cuts by reducing the Biden administration’s leverage.

At least one House Republican even appeared to say he would not raise the debt limit under any condition.

“We cannot raise the debt ceiling. Democrats have carelessly spent our taxpayer money and devalued our currency,” Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) tweeted. “They’ve made their bed, so they must lie in it.”

We cannot raise the debt ceiling.

Democrats have carelessly spent our taxpayer money and devalued our currency.

They’ve made their bed, so they must lie in it.

— Rep Andy Biggs (@RepAndyBiggsAZ) January 17, 2023

McCarthy and most Republicans have rejected these ideas, saying the party believes in the need to raise the debt limit. But McCarthy also agreed to a deal with Roy to put forward a debt “prioritization plan” that would specify what payments Treasury should make in the unprecedented event that the government cannot meet all its obligations. Treasury officials have said such a plan is not technically feasible, and any such effort would likely still drive up the costs of U.S. borrowing by throwing the trustworthiness of federal credit into doubt.

House Republicans prepare emergency plan for breaching debt limit

The ideas, however, were backed by Republican Study Committee Chair Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), who wrote in a memo earlier this week that the GOP should bring to negotiations a demand to “codify procedures to ensure the federal government honors critical obligations, such as federal debt payments, national security and veterans, Social Security, and Medicare.”

The document left unclear how such a plan would ensure operations for thousands of other federal government functions.

Tony Romm contributed to this report.

Originally Appeared Here

AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 30, 2023 /PRNewswire/ — Digital Realty (NYSE: DLR), a leading global provider of cloud- and carrier-neutral data center, colocation and interconnection solutions, announced today the tax treatment of its 2022 dividends for common stock and preferred stock.  The information below has been prepared using the best available information to date.  Digital Realty’s federal income tax return for the year ended December 31, 2022 has not yet been filed.  Please note that federal tax laws affect taxpayers differently, and we cannot advise you on how distributions should be reported on your federal income tax return.  Please also note that state and local taxation of REIT distributions vary and may not be the same as the federal rules.  Shareholders are urged to consult with their tax advisors as to their specific tax treatment of Digital Realty’s dividends. 

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. Common Stock Dividends 
CUSIP # 253868103 
Ticker Symbol: DLR

Digital Realty’s 2022 taxable dividend of $4.497873 per share includes a portion (72%) of one quarterly distribution declared in 2021 and paid in January 2022 and three quarterly distributions declared and paid in 2022.  Digital Realty’s 2022 taxable dividend will be reported on Form 1099-DIV as follows:  $2.638084 per share (59%) as ordinary income, $0.747632 per share (16%) as capital gain distribution and $1.112157 per share (25%) as nondividend distribution.

The following table contains this information on a quarterly basis: 

Record Dates	Payment Dates (1)	Cash Distribution ($ per share) (1)	Taxable Dividend ($ per share) (1)	Box 1a Ordinary Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1b Qualified Dividend ($ per share)	Box 2a  Long-Term Capital Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2b Un- Recaptured Section 1250 Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2f Section 897 Capital Gain ($ per share) (2)	Box 3 Nondividend Distribution  ($ per share)	Box 5 Section 199A Dividend ($ per share) (3)	Section 1061 One-Year Capital Gain ($ per share) (4)	Section 1061 Three-Year Capital Gain ($ per share) (4)
12/15/2021	01/14/2022	$1.160000	$0.837873	$0.491428	$0.015398	$0.139271	$0.016395	$0.101620	$0.207174	$0.476030	$0.000218	$0.000218
03/15/2022	03/31/2022	$1.220000	$1.220000	$0.715552	$0.022420	$0.202787	$0.023872	$0.147965	$0.301661	$0.693132	$0.000318	$0.000318
06/15/2022	06/30/2022	$1.220000	$1.220000	$0.715552	$0.022420	$0.202787	$0.023872	$0.147965	$0.301661	$0.693132	$0.000318	$0.000318
09/15/2022	09/30/2022	$1.220000	$1.220000	$0.715552	$0.022420	$0.202787	$0.023872	$0.147965	$0.301661	$0.693132	$0.000318	$0.000318
		$4.820000	$4.497873	$2.638084	$0.082658	$0.747632	$0.088011	$0.545515	$1.112157	$2.555426	$0.001172	$0.001172

(1)	Please note that of the $1.16 quarterly distribution paid in January 2022, $0.322127 was included in the 2021 taxable dividend and $0.837873 will be considered as 2022 reportable dividend for federal income tax purposes.  The $1.22 quarterly cash distribution declared in the fourth quarter of 2022 and paid in January 2023 will be treated as a 2023 distribution for federal income tax purposes and will not be included on the 2022 Form 1099-DIV and will be reported on your 2023 Form 1099-DIV.
(2)	Represents Section 897 gain attributable to disposition of U.S. real property interests included in Box 2a Long-Term Capital Gain. Section 897 is applicable to nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations.
(3)	Beginning in 2018, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 added Section 199A to allow for a new tax deduction based on certain qualified business income.  Section 199A provides eligible individual taxpayers a deduction of up to 20% of their qualified real estate investment trust dividends (Box 5 of the Form 1099-DIV).
(4)	For purposes of Section 1061 of the Internal Revenue Code, Digital Realty is disclosing two additional capital gain categories.  Section 1061 is generally applicable to direct and indirect holders of “applicable partnership interests.”  Please consult your tax advisor with respect to the two additional categories disclosed herein.

Series J Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock Dividends 
CUSIP # 253868855 
Ticker Symbol: DLRPRJ

The 2022 taxable dividend for Digital Realty Trust, Inc.’s Series J Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock is $1.312500 per share.  For tax reporting purposes, $1.022676 per share (78%) will be reported on Form 1099-DIV as ordinary income and $0.289824 per share (22%) as capital gain distribution. 

The following table contains this information on a quarterly basis:  

Record Dates	Payment Dates	Cash Distribution ($ per share)	Taxable Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1a Ordinary Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1b Qualified Dividend ($ per share)	Box 2a  Long-Term Capital Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2b Unrecaptured Section 1250 Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2f Section 897 Capital Gain ($ per share)	Box 5 Section 199A Dividend ($ per share)	Section 1061 One-Year Amounts Disclosure ($ per share)	Section 1061 Three-Year Amounts Disclosure  ($ per share)
03/15/2022	03/31/2022	$0.328125	$0.328125	$0.255669	$0.008011	$0.072456	$0.008529	$0.052868	$0.247658	$0.000114	$0.000114
06/15/2022	06/30/2022	$0.328125	$0.328125	$0.255669	$0.008011	$0.072456	$0.008529	$0.052868	$0.247658	$0.000114	$0.000114
09/15/2022	09/30/2022	$0.328125	$0.328125	$0.255669	$0.008011	$0.072456	$0.008529	$0.052868	$0.247658	$0.000114	$0.000114
12/15/2022	12/30/2022	$0.328125	$0.328125	$0.255669	$0.008011	$0.072456	$0.008529	$0.052868	$0.247658	$0.000114	$0.000114
		$1.312500	$1.312500	$1.022676	$0.032044	$0.289824	$0.034116	$0.211472	$0.990632	$0.000456	$0.000456

Series K Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock Dividends 
CUSIP # 253868830 
Ticker Symbol: DLRPRK

The 2022 taxable dividend for Digital Realty Trust, Inc.’s Series K Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock is $1.462500 per share.  For tax reporting purposes, $1.139552 per share (78%) will be reported on Form 1099-DIV as ordinary income and $0.322948 per share (22%) as capital gain distribution. 

The following table contains this information on a quarterly basis:  

Record Dates	Payment Dates	Cash Distribution ($ per share)	Taxable Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1a Ordinary Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1b Qualified Dividend ($ per share)	Box 2a  Long-Term Capital Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2b Unrecaptured Section 1250 Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2f Section 897 Capital Gain ($ per share)	Box 5 Section 199A Dividend ($ per share)	Section 1061 One-Year Amounts Disclosure  ($ per share)	Section 1061 Three-Year Amounts Disclosure ($ per share)
03/15/2022	03/31/2022	$0.365625	$0.365625	$0.284888	$0.008926	$0.080737	$0.009504	$0.058911	$0.275962	$0.000127	$0.000127
06/15/2022	06/30/2022	$0.365625	$0.365625	$0.284888	$0.008926	$0.080737	$0.009504	$0.058911	$0.275962	$0.000127	$0.000127
09/15/2022	09/30/2022	$0.365625	$0.365625	$0.284888	$0.008926	$0.080737	$0.009504	$0.058911	$0.275962	$0.000127	$0.000127
12/15/2022	12/30/2022	$0.365625	$0.365625	$0.284888	$0.008926	$0.080737	$0.009504	$0.058911	$0.275962	$0.000127	$0.000127
		$1.462500	$1.462500	$1.139552	$0.035704	$0.322948	$0.038016	$0.235644	$1.103848	$0.000508	$0.000508

Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock Dividends 
CUSIP # 253868822 
Ticker Symbol: DLRPRL

The 2022 taxable dividend for Digital Realty Trust, Inc.’s Series L Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock is $1.300000 per share.  For tax reporting purposes, $1.012936 per share (78%) will be reported on Form 1099-DIV as ordinary income and $0.287064 per share (22%) as capital gain distribution. 

The following table contains this information on a quarterly basis:  

Record Dates	Payment Dates	Cash Distribution ($ per share)	Taxable Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1a Ordinary Dividend ($ per share)	Box 1b Qualified Dividend ($ per share)	Box 2a  Long-Term Capital Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2b Unrecaptured Section 1250 Gain  ($ per share)	Box 2f Section 897 Capital Gain ($ per share)	Box 5 Section 199A Dividend ($ per share)	Section 1061 One-Year Amounts Disclosure ($ per share)	Section 1061 Three-Year Amounts Disclosure ($ per share)
03/15/2022	03/31/2022	$0.325000	$0.325000	$0.253234	$0.007935	$0.071766	$0.008448	$0.052365	$0.245299	$0.000113	$0.000113
06/15/2022	06/30/2022	$0.325000	$0.325000	$0.253234	$0.007935	$0.071766	$0.008448	$0.052365	$0.245299	$0.000113	$0.000113
09/15/2022	09/30/2022	$0.325000	$0.325000	$0.253234	$0.007935	$0.071766	$0.008448	$0.052365	$0.245299	$0.000113	$0.000113
12/15/2022	12/30/2022	$0.325000	$0.325000	$0.253234	$0.007935	$0.071766	$0.008448	$0.052365	$0.245299	$0.000113	$0.000113
		$1.300000	$1.300000	$1.012936	$0.031740	$0.287064	$0.033792	$0.209460	$0.981196	$0.000452	$0.000452

Note that ticker symbols may vary by stock quote provider. 

About Digital Realty 
Digital Realty brings companies and data together by delivering the full spectrum of data center, colocation and interconnection solutions. PlatformDIGITAL®, the Company’s global data center platform, provides customers with a secure data “meeting place” and a proven Pervasive Datacenter Architecture (PDx™) solution methodology for powering innovation and efficiently managing Data Gravity challenges.  Digital Realty gives its customers access to the connected communities that matter to them with a global data center footprint of 300+ facilities in 50+ metros across 27 countries on six continents. To learn more about Digital Realty, please visit digitalrealty.com or follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Safe Harbor Statement 
This press release contains forward-looking statements which are based on current expectations, forecasts and assumptions that involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially, including statements related to the amount and payment of dividends on our common stock and preferred stock.  For a list and description of such risks and uncertainties, see the reports and other filings by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.  The company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. 

For Additional Information

Investor Relations 
Jordan Sadler / Jim Huseby 
Digital Realty 
(737) 281-0101 
[email protected]

SOURCE Digital Realty

Originally Appeared Here